C

C -

D

F

That seems to be a common reaction, but at the same time I'm noticing that people who actually LIKE the ambiguous nature of Lindelof's storytelling (and who embraced the same thing in Lost), seem to be liking the movie a bit more.

Fortunately I'm one of those in the second camp, so hopefully I won't find the movie quite as irritating as others here...

(crosses fingers)

Click to expand...

I like the ambiguity and the film is perfectly enjoyable. The stupid parts are no more stupid than the Joker having time to install enough explosives in a hospital on every level without being noticed to make it explode massively or the molestation of some basic laws of physics for the convenience of the story in NuTrek.

Those things irritate me but don't ruin the story completely. My disappointment stems from the fact that I had such high hopes for something less schlocky than this turned out to be. I was hoping for X-Men 2 but got the Wolverine movie.

Man, these reviews are all over the place. I gotta say, it's tempered my enthusiasm somewhat, but then, lower expectations may work out in my favour -- if it turns out the film isn't so great, perhaps I won't be so disappointed.

Going to see it tonight at a midnight screening... here's hoping it delivers.

Well, that's the same guy who gave thumbs up to The Phantom Menace, Cop and a half and a load of terrible films, and thumbs down to Rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead and a bunch of other decent movies, so I don't really trust Ebert's opinion all that much.

Well, that's the same guy who gave thumbs up to The Phantom Menace, Cop and a half and a load of terrible films, and thumbs down to Rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead and a bunch of other decent movies, so I don't really trust Ebert's opinion all that much.

Click to expand...

I can understand all of that except for Phantom Menace. How could he have possibly looked past that nonsensical walking goat?

I don't understand your point of view. Yes, the movie raises some basic questions about the origin of human life, but it never addresses them in any significant way, except to have a couple of characters tell us that these things are Very Important.

Click to expand...

What else should one expect from Lindelof? Same shit went on with Lost as well. I refuse to acknowledge that last season and that flash forward/sideways...whatever bullshit.

How congruous that the latter half of this flick was, for lack of a better word, shit.

BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

That seems to be a common reaction, but at the same time I'm noticing that people who actually LIKE the ambiguous nature of Lindelof's storytelling (and who embraced the same thing in Lost), seem to be liking the movie a bit more.

Fortunately I'm one of those in the second camp, so hopefully I won't find the movie quite as irritating as others here...

(crosses fingers)

Click to expand...

Well I didn't mind it on Lost, but I might just be the exception that proves the rule...

What else should one expect from Lindelof? Same shit went on with Lost as well. I refuse to acknowledge that last season and that flash forward/sideways...whatever bullshit.

How congruous that the latter half of this flick was, for lack of a better word, shit.

BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

That seems to be a common reaction, but at the same time I'm noticing that people who actually LIKE the ambiguous nature of Lindelof's storytelling (and who embraced the same thing in Lost), seem to be liking the movie a bit more.

Fortunately I'm one of those in the second camp, so hopefully I won't find the movie quite as irritating as others here...

(crosses fingers)

Click to expand...

Well I didn't mind it on Lost, but I might just be the exception that proves the rule...

Click to expand...

I don't mind unanswered questions and ambiguity. I do mind when it gets stupid though. I mean I go in to a film like Transformers or Battleship expecting stupid but this has wants and tries to be more than that. It just isn't.

Unfortunately a disappointment! First of all movie doesn't have any of the scenes they featured in the promos like when Guy Pierce is giving that speech about technology or David about himself. The movie is just so unoriginal and boring: I mean team of people on another planet is exploring ancient buried alien ship while they themselves are going trough biological transformations and then you know the rest... It's like watching "The Tommyknockers" but on another planet.
Overall there's one really good scene of

I saw it last night, and was disappointed. The first half is good, and promising, but everything from the C-Section onwards is rushed through at breakneck speed, the pacing is all off, and people start doing some weird and inexplicable things. Why did the two guys sacrifice themselves with a big smile on their faces at the end, when they could have just hopped into the standalone unit? Nobody in their right mind would do that after the Captain just said he could handle it alone. The C-Section scene itself was absurd as well.

And why cast Guy Pearce? He's a good actor, but unless they have some plan for a sequel, why not cast an old guy to play the old guy? He was not convincing as an old man.

Good stuff? Well, the effects and production design were great, and there is some good tension and good scenes in the first hour.

The complete and sudden collapse of the film into stupidity reminded me alot of Sunshine. I am such a big fan of Alien & Blade Runner, I really expected so much more from Scott's return to Sci-Fi. I gave it a B-, it was OK by the standard of most blockbuster action/sci-fi movies, but a disaster for a Ridley Scott movie.

And why cast Guy Pearce? He's a good actor, but unless they have some plan for a sequel, why not cast an old guy to play the old guy? He was not convincing as an old man.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Lance Henrikson always seemed to be the de facto Weyland in the franchise and could have played the part adequately. Then again, AvP probably placed him way too early in the company history to be believable in Prometheus' future setting.

A bit of a mixed bag. Beautiful looking film. I'm a bit divided on it. The parts I like are the nods and connections to the Alien Franchise. But without these elements I don't think the film could hold up under scrutiny.

Ridley Scott has said that it will take another two films to get to the point where we start at Alien. Frankly you might have had a stronger film by doing that in 1 or 2 films, the storyline seems a bit stretched and I see it's trying to make some commentary about where we came from but it doesn't get into it enough.

Unfortunately a disappointment! First of all movie doesn't have any of the scenes they featured in the promos like when Guy Pierce is giving that speech about technology or David about himself. The movie is just so unoriginal and boring: I mean team of people on another planet is exploring ancient buried alien ship while they themselves are going trough biological transformations and then you know the rest... It's like watching "The Tommyknockers" but on another planet. [/SPOILER]

Click to expand...

They could have avoided the unoriginal and rushed presentation by Guy Pearce if it had been one of the things David had watched during his (frankly more interesting) time alone on the ship. They should have done a proper flyover of the planet, landed and set up a mobile lab with proper quarantine procedures and spent some time logging everything as they went before certain people started the disaster ball rolling. Such scenes could have been done by way of montage to take less time, intorducing snippets of the supporting cast's personalities as they went.

If they had made it less clear who was meant to be the 'main' hero character it would have been far less predictable. And the self operation was indeed very silly but more so because a) the same character then has to perform all manner of acrobatic heroics and b) the characters she just twatted don't even mention the fracas in her later reappearance and c) why tip her off at all? Stick her in storage and let another character take up the mantle and/or rescue her later.

So anyone have any theories regarding the 10/11/12 date seen after the credits? from the weyland industries website's timeline for that date

"Weyland Corporation is recognized as a legal entity and corporation under United States law and receives their Certificate of Incorporation from the Companies House in the United Kingdom. Due to the combined value of Sir Peter Weyland’s various patents and patent-pendings, the company incorporates with a higher fair market valuation than any other company in history"

Obviously the date has viral marketing significance, but for what exactly?

October 11th is a thursday, so unlikely to be the home video release date. Maybe an annoucement or teaser for the next film? Maybe just more lame viral marketing? (I actually loved the David 8 one, better than most of what was in the film, and I really like the film) Maybe Prometheus 2 has been filmed in secret and is being released?

And why cast Guy Pearce? He's a good actor, but unless they have some plan for a sequel, why not cast an old guy to play the old guy? He was not convincing as an old man.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Lance Henrikson always seemed to be the de facto Weyland in the franchise and could have played the part adequately. Then again, AvP probably placed him way too early in the company history to be believable in Prometheus' future setting.

Click to expand...

Is it possible to reconcile the two? Perhaps Charles Bishop Weyland is Peter Weyland's estranged uncle or father or something. They had a falling out, and so Peter takes all the credit for the company.

Also:

I take it that the alien spaceship that crashes in this film is the same one that the Nostromo crew finds in Alien? And do we see the same Space Jockey that appears in the latter film, but this time before his death?